On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 08:46:27AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 07:58:00PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:44:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > Brian Thomas Sniffen: > > > >> So we can't just suggest that users pretend they never heard the > > > >> generic call for patches, or the invocation of a termination clause. > > Sven Luther: > > > > Well, sure we can. And before you disagree, i encourage you to make > > > > some legal > > > > research, if basic common-sense doesn't apply to you. > > BTS: > > > So you're suggesting that the QPL is free because we can tell users to > > > disregard the authors wishes, disregard what the license says, just > > > shut your ears and wait for them to take you into court? > > Sven: > > No, i am saying no such thing, please give me detailed explanation on how > > you > > read this in my previous post. > > OK, let's go down the thread here. > > First we have "[W]e can't just suggest that users pretend they never heard > the generic call for patches". You then said "Well, sure we can". > > There's two interpretations here. Firstly, that you're advocating the > "if they can't prove it, it never happened" legal theory. Which is fine if
Well, not exactly, i said that a non nominal request over a TV channel is not legally binding. The fact that the modificator heard about it or not is immaterial to that fact. I suppose i face no risk of being wrong in claiming that any lawsuit claiming that a request was not honored, if he didn't make it in a binding way. That include a letter (preferably with some proof of reception), maybe a signed email with a reponse, an in person meeting to ask the software, heck even a phone call would do. But a generic TV commercial asking for any modifier to send all their patches, sorry, but i suppose even in the US, a judge would laugh at you and dismsiss the case. And if this is not so, i would really like to hear legal advice on why this is not so. > you *want* to be adversarial, but I'd hope that we're all adult enough in > the Free Software world to *want* to abide by the terms of the licensor. And how please shall i fill the resquest of the upstream author if i never heard of him ? And remember this is in the desert island or chinese disident context. > The alternate interpretation is that you're suggesting we can ignore a > generic call for patches because it's not legally applicable. You Yes sure, especially if the call for patch in question missed you completely, which is probable in both the desert island and chinese dissident case. > apparently have legal advice which backs the "TV ad is not legally > applicable" stance, which suggests you're of the second interpretation. My Well, yes indeed. That said, once you are both in fron of the judge, upstream can then make its request in person, and you have to fullfill it, still both the desert island and chinese disident tests are void in this case, and upstream could as well have taken the trouble to write the modifier a letter requesting the modification. Also another point is that upstream has somehow to know that a modification is real, and has been distributed, before making the request. > first interpretation of what you wrote was the first, also, so I think that > if you want to avoid flames, you might want to expand your reasoning as > early as possible, so others can understand what you're thinking. Ok, fair criticism, i am not debian-legal regular though, and this kind of reasoning is not my daily bread. > That still leaves the question of whether you believe that following the > spirit of a licence is a good thing to do, even though by a happy > confluence of inexact wording and legal boundaries, the letter of the > licence allows your action (or inaction, in this case). Well, i believe i asked this same question in another mail to MJ Ray, but maybe i should respond to it in a separate thread. I don't think it is reprehensible, and even i think it furthers the free software goal, that redistribution over patch hoarding is a good thing. > I'm a "abide by the spirit" kind of guy, so if I had modified a QPL-licenced > program and distributed the modifications privately, and I came to know[1] > of a request by the original licensor to provide patches to him/her under Which patch ? and do he really mean you, or some other guy ? > the terms of the licence, I would feel somewhat obligated to fire the > patches upstream. So, you provide it to him. If you are on a deserted island, and you received the request on a message bottle though, i doubt you would feel ashamed if you would not be able to fullfill your obligation though. And probably the upstream author would not know of your patch anyway, and not make such a request. Friendly, Sven Luther > > - Matt
